Bots under scrutiny in Congress race

The shady industry of paid Twitter followers bled into the Democratic primary for New York’s 21st Congressional District this week.

PLATTSBURGH | Twitter has long since emerged as the 21st century equivalent of the water cooler.

The micro-blogging service has become an indispensable tool for political campaigns to push messaging, galvanize support and otherwise engage with voters and reporters.

For some, like Tweeter in Chief President Donald Trump, it’s their preferred method of communication.

Use of the platform bled into the Democratic primary for New York’s 21st Congressional District this week when one campaign questioned if their opponent’s large Twitter following accurately reflected the size of their support.

“She’s has a base, but I don’t think it’s as big as she thinks,” Paterakis told The Sun. “Most of her Twitter followers are bots.”

An audit by the third-party app Twitter Audit revealed 39 percent of Cobb’s followers were genuine as opposed to Nelson’s 99 percent.

Cobb’s account had 2,767 followers, a number that dropped to 1,726 on Tuesday after the Cobb campaign was asked to respond to Paterakis’ comments.

Audits of the rest of the field — including Emily Martz, Dylan Ratigan, Katie Wilson, Green Party candidate Lynn Kahn and incumbent Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Willsboro) — revealed the overwhelming majority of their followers were authentic.

A large number of followers on the platform can boost credibility, which is why services to purchase followers — including automated accounts known as “bots” — have mushroomed in recent years.

But fake followers also erode credibility, as the New York Times reported in a blowout investigative report last January detailing the lucrative global marketplace for followers and retweets designed to make people appear more popular than they are or otherwise exert influence.

"No, we haven't bought any followers,” said Cobb campaign manager Mike Szustak. “The bots are outside of the campaign and Twitter seems to clear them away pretty quickly — they've gone from thousands a few days ago down to a few hundred.”

“If someone goes from having 2,000 followers to 10,000 followers in two days, they probably paid for it,” CNET reported.

Szustak said the only way to excise bots is to manually go through and block them or pay someone to do so.

“The campaign has better things to focus our time and resources on,” he said. "The size of our follower number is less important to the campaign than the quality of the content we produce and its relevance to voters in NY21."

CAMPAIGNS REACT

Several of Cobb’s opponents were quick to shun the practice of purchasing followers.

“Right after the 2016 election, Emily organized progressives all around our district in a true grassroots effort, said R. Christopher Di Mezzo, a spokesman for Martz. “It’s that same grassroots spirit that drives our social media following. We would never jeopardize the integrity of the work we’ve built and the relationships we formed by purchasing Twitter followers.”

Nelson said, “No, we have never purchased Twitter followers and nor will we ever.”

Ratigan, a former MSNBC host with a national profile, is an active Twitter user and boasts the most followers of any candidate — about 79,800 — and said all of them were organic.

“We haven’t!” said Ratigan when asked if his campaign had ever purchased followers.

Kahn touted a following accrued through years of public service as a strategic consultant.

“No, I have not purchased followers on Twitter or Facebook,” she said.

Emerging research suggests bot-driven Twitter campaigns can lead to societal instability by spreading propaganda and stoking political feuds.

Scientific American reported recent investigations have uncovered Russia-backed bots programmed to automatically tweet “animosity-stoking messages” in the national gun control debate following the Parkland high school shooting in February.

It’s well-documented that Russian bots were active during the 2016 presidential campaign alongside trolls and other rabblerousers.

Bot-driven campaigns have also sought to influence the U.K.’s “Brexit” referendum and shape public opinion in France, Germany, Austria and Italy, according to the Scientific American report.

Cristian Balan, coordinator of SUNY Plattsburgh’s Center of Cybersecurity and Technology, said oftentimes bots can be triggered to issue pre-programmed responses by certain keywords or hashtags — including whenever a politician or candidate references that particular word on social media.

Bots can “absolutely” lead to feuds and conflict, he said.

“We saw what happened in the 2016 presidential election,” Balan told The Sun. “Will they be able to affect the election? I think that’s very clear.”

Politicians and candidates should ask themselves two main questions, Balan said:

“Is it legal, and it is it ethical?”

While the jury is still out on the latter, he called for politicians to disavow the practice.

“It should be a conscious, collaborative solution from everybody,” said Balan.

DIVIDED ON NATIONAL SECURITY RISK

There’s no evidence of Russian influence in New York’s 21st Congressional District contest.

But campaigns are mixed on acknowledging the connection between bots — namely paid followers — and national security implications.

“It's always possible, but it's a bit of a stretch,” Nelson said.

Ratigan said, “Our broken political system is a much greater risk to our country than Twitter bots.”

Kahn disagrees, and said bots do present a national security risk.

“Yes, I do. I do think the Mueller investigation is focused rightfully on Russian interference in our elections,” she said. “We need to understand what’s going on, and I do think it’s a national security issue."

So does Stefanik, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and has attempted to position herself as a leading voice on cyber warfare, including efforts to combat Russian election meddling.

Artificial intelligence is changing the face of global warfare, the lawmaker has argued, citing bots deployed by Russian operatives in the 2016 presidential contest.

“Some accounts on Twitter are fronts for Russian bots, and that’s concerning to me,” Stefanik told The Sun last month. “They have a significant number of military personnel focused on putting out misinformation.”

The lawmaker, a self-described Russian hawk who chairs the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, last month sponsored a bill to strengthen federal cybersecurity, support intelligence gathering and enhance NATO military activities.

The “Defend Against Russian Disinformation Act” declares that Russia has been active in the spread of disinformation designed to undermine democracies worldwide.

“Russia is an active adversary of the United States and this legislation aims to counter their ability to conduct information warfare on the American people,” Stefanik said in a statement.

To combat Russian influence, the bill codifies the U.S. State Department’s Coordinator of Sanctions Office to oversee the diplomatic aspects of Russian sanctions, which was closed by the administration last year.

In addition, the bill doubles down that an executive order issued by Trump last year to strengthen federal cybersecurity should be implemented.

The proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Val Demmings, a Florida Democrat, and Rep. Ted Lieu, an outspoken Trump critic, also directs Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to beef up NATO naval exercises in the Baltic and Black Sea and conduct joint research to “enhance military capabilities” to deter Russian aggression.

‘GOT IT WRONG’

Stefanik’s political campaign team was quick to bash the Cobb campaign, accusing them of purchasing bots.

“This is an absolute embarrassment for any candidate, and reeks of desperation that Tedra Cobb is paying for fake Twitter followers,” said Lenny Alcivar, a campaign spokesman. “Meanwhile on the House Armed Services Committee, Congresswoman Stefanik is focused on combating disinformation bots from Russia to protect our national security."

There’s no evidence that the bots that had been following Cobb’s campaign account engaged in any nefarious behavior.

Szustak punched back.

"Stefanik and her staff got it wrong about Tedra Cobb and Twitter bots,” he said. “But they also got it wrong when she voted with corporate interests against northern New York in voting to close rural hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. Twitter bots don't create jobs or hold down healthcare costs, but Stefanik could have. Who sounds desperate?"

Alcivar noted the sophomore lawmaker helped steer some $26.7 million in funding to district hospitals over the next five years as part of a budget bill passed by Congress and signed by Trump in February.

"An already rattled Tedra Cobb began her embarrassing week on defense over her Twitter bots and lack of message,” Alcivar said. “It now ends by exposing her complete lack of social media support and her disparaging of local healthcare leaders in St. Lawrence County and across the district who have publicly thanked Congresswoman Stefanik for her leadership in standing up for our rural hospitals."